Until 2011 i understand that again noise is very up to different people but if you have to live there and alone to a beep like several gentlemen have said earlier thats an issue so im asking you right now since are you willing to work with them . If i have to. Okay. That answers it okay. Thank you. Ms. Kaiser you have rebuttal. Thank you i would urge the board to consider whether this dispute between the neighbors about noise is really something for capital hill at this point to continue to meet were fairly clear that in terms of the noise are ordinance the board of supervisors made a number of choices that take that out of the realm of a dph Public Health noise consideration in terms of the actual violations that is equipment on the roof that no one what hear this is on ongoing legitimate dispute between neighbors but maybe in the form of a nuisance suit or some other mechanism is it roll for the city do i hear a motion to approve the minutes . To continue to keep rollercoaster tail in a position based on a noise violation no one can hear to have to tale with and extend more money with a dispute with the neighbor you im not theyre no dispute and the ladies concern is not serious but the department of health did the right thing consider the alternative if the department of Public Health does not grant a variants then rollercoaster tail wi be required to rooster tail has done what weve asked that is above and beyond what the law required of it in order to get the variance what is a violation into place where known can hear it i that its fair to up holder dphs decision not to use the noise ordinance as the point of pressure in this neighbors dispu dispute. So the wraich of the duct. I can find an exhibit in the declaration i think what happened they were directed to wrap the duct we remembered out and established and continued to find a violation on the roof and come back and tell them you need to be in compliance they asked for another variance added which the abatements was held and weve said the sulter consultant said youll have to wrap the rest of the duct we said thats right either fix the problem that on the roof or well give you a vanes if you wrap the rest of the duct a thats what we did im sorry. They didnt follow the directions theres only half of the duct thats wrapped im kind of confused i understand half of the duct was wrapped the capital hill ordered the full duct to be wrapped. Those were two separate rulings. Theyre no in guidance or are. Theyre currently in compliance of every everything that dph asked. Im confused you ask them to wrap half the, if you will, duct. We asked them to wrap the duct and then asked them to wrap the whole duct the first was specific. So they wrapped the whole duct at this point. Thats and okay. I have one question this is out of curiosity the dph is inconsistent whether or not the eliminate wells can be measured. Yes and no im sorry it depends on how youre looking at the question dph made a mistake the law a mistake of lay to ever consider a measurement from a right well, thats smaller in an 9 feet square to measure noise there thats not allowed under the noise that requires a measurement to be taken at least four and a half feat e feet it didnt say anything about light widens a larger light well could be properly measures it cant be properly measured the one were talking about thats a matter of law there was a mistake and how long has dph been making that mistake . I dont have firsthand knowledge of that my information is that the inspections who were directed to go out and measure the light well had in the first place didnt that that was okay. So theres not a theres been a dmang this case not necessarily a change among standing practice. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you commissioners the matter is submitted. Do you want difficult departments want to say anything . Come on up and i was going to speak by the gentleman from sulter he addressed everything well expect to see them and thats all. Has the department been to the department or site sorry mr. Duffy commissioner honda i assume see i havent checked the permit it wasnt a dph but a health department. You have a tibia bit of information thank you. I know, but thats it. Okay. Thank you mr. Duffy well, lets start off with what happened last time genesis of this board denomination last time was based on a position that noise generation and its sources should be handled within the within the property and therefore the historical use of light wells or of interiors of building with the ducts is not something we felt a strong residence so that letting lead us to look at the rejecting the appeal of the variance decision im still of that opinion that the sound like sources might have been fairly consistent in terms of sound sources need to be examined within the property and therefore controlled to a certain extent the issue thats coming up today is slightly different in the sense that theres the legal copy formation and the legal properness as to whether you can have a sound measurement its not legal within the base a thought ordinance i dont accept that either the question of letting it whether its residing between dph or whether its preceding within the court system is not Something Else im prepared to accept i think we should force the parties to have a greater settlement and resolve this it is a highly technical issue its not going to go away whether one is being sensitive or not or more sensitive to sound or visitation we need to deal with that are the appellant should be aware that the city has made their position that this companions and therefore come to the table a little bit better the permit holder should be aware hes safe with continuing opposition if he didnt find a resolution. I agree i dont know what the solution it is i think honestly the department has is throwing their hands up in the air that is a longs arduous situation im not willing to grant the variance myself id like to if monomy of my commissioners will have a recommendation. Im not sure im with you on this. Well, let me say what i will do and see if theres support ill continue this for a very limited period of time and let the two parties met and see if they can arrive not only and a at the researching the Technical Information but what it will cost in fees. I can support that limited time. And as i indicated the appellant needs to be aware that the some costs are involved. Okay. I agree i believe the appellant and permit holder needs to come to the table table and the next time if this motion passes i guess well make the decision. Any comments . Im struggling here not because im new but im struggling with the issue before us and i be that council is right that dph what they did was within their discretion they see no Public Health concerns and it is so difficult to think of substituting any judgment for theirs im sympathetic i know its difficult for the lady and the Business Owner but im struggling iowa our role is i can support a short continuance but ill be very reluctant to do so im a little bit where you are which is like im willing to give the alternative to see if perhaps theres a solution that mitigate our concerns commissioner. Ill move we continue this for a short period of time and see whether the parties can come together on that that. Commissioner fung the boards purposes next week is probably too short the following meeting is in question we may not have enough commissioners on the october 29th meeting and the meeting on the next meeting we have an lawns of cases or next week. Ill hear from both parties or november 19th is acceptable. Thank you very much commissioners im climbing on a plane tomorrow morning at 6 oclock and begun for 8 days ill be useful in the process of go trying to workout an agreement and take into account as youre determining how long a period of time you want to grant for a continuance. I have no objection to either date but i would prefer a sooner resolution than a literary one to bring this long and arduous matter to a close. The permit holder . I would noted prefer next week you can have some time for repair. November 19th. My motion to continue this to november 19th and well see whether anything comes out of it. Okay no additional briefing allowed . No, they, give us a 3 page briefing i want it simultaneous so if theres a final it will be a maximum of 3 pages of argument with inhabits commissioners. Yes. And with any number of inhabits sfrngsz for instance, if you reach an agreement submit that to the board. I want to request and spelling your last name for the record briefing process well have the spectre study we saw it this afternoon in order to respond to the course of studying we need to see what that is. Well stagger it madam director. Okay and those of us unfamiliar with staggering today explain that pages of kings presentation but any number of inhabits. 3 pages of argument plus exhibit your briefing is due three weeks on a theirs thats is the permit holder and the departments is due one thursday before the meeting everyone will have this in writing. So we have a motion from commissioner fung to continue this matter until november 19th the public matter has been closed this is to allow the pirates it negotiate additional briefing is allowed 3 pages the Vice President is absent commissioner president lazarus. Commissioner honda commissioner wilson and the vote is 4 to zero this matter is continued until november 19th. Item 7 was rescheduled until december 19th and item 8 a jurisdiction subject property on cap street the board received a letter the requester asking the board take jurisdiction over 0 the application which was issued owes on august 2014 by the deniable it ended open the 22nd and it was filed on september 12, 47 the permit holder is timothy to convert it as a singlefamily dwelling and well first mention that oh, no. Well start with the requester who has 3 minutes. Members of the board im Courtney Brown a second year lull student under the supervision of rachel i represent mr. Ceo the tenant open cap street we respectfully ask jurisdiction to repeal this permit the gentleman didnt have the opportunity to appeal the permit during the specified time in which your allot to do appeal i didnt know with the permit was issued there of the also no opportunity to sunday evening discretionary review because he didnt know there was a permit applied for this year that permit should have been under full review is seeks to remove an occupied unit this unit has been occupied by the gentleman for 31 years they are the permit holder is stating its at ts an illegal unit we contest as seen by this picture so the unit is the top level here it has its own entrance and it also has a back exit it is two bedrooms a living room, a very nice kitchen ive been there and so it is not the traditional subterranean unit thats considered illegal for those purposes there is also a misrepresentation open the permit itself they misrepresented its a one dwelling building its not its two dwelling and misrepresented there is no change in occupancy there is a theres a change bus the gentleman will have to leave the unit and the permit holders didnt owner move American People eviction in june 2014 so its our belief theyre considering merging those two units to get out of the requirement they occupy this unit for 3 years bottom unit id like to have the gentleman come up and talk about the plan. Good evening commissioners im been living on cap street for 31 years and i am a cultural working in the midst district living in San Francisco all my life and yeah. I didnt have my knowledge of any of this just last week last month and thats pretty much it thank you. Are there any questions . Thank you thank you. Okay. Well hear from the permit holder. Good evening board and thats correct for your time im tim ig9 and my wife rachel we own 843 cap street florescence is that was two argument they put forth towards jurisdiction the first, the permit should have been reviewed by the department of health and what the not reviewed by the Planning Department the second was the work is structural therefore it should have the believable should have sent out noticing notices ive spent time speaking with flaefrnsz approved the exact information we priority to the appellant showed the permit was signed off by eric jackson and when it comes to the type of work being done its not structural work at all as determined by research that the department of building inspection performed the unit was originally constructed at a singlefamily home and used as that and up until a point its unknown when an illegal dividing wall split it into an upper and lower unit it was not there that wall its thin its on purpose to divide the upper and lower unit theres a tip to in a comment about roemg the front door theyre not relocated only replaced then to address the comments about misrepresentations and our intentions just to give brief background my wifes family emigrated to San Francisco from mexico in 1940s it is coming up on the 45th anniversary of the history of the community and our intention to live in the highway to raise our family and her grandmother will be moving in with us this is our plans our intentions to live in the house for the rest of our lives this is our home we respectfully request based on that information to not have jurisdiction as the argument set forth thank you. I have a question. Yes. You recently you purchased this property and over a year ago. What was it a singlefamily home or two unit building. Two unit building at this point. He thees policies are given to you, you i believe there was issues i cant recall the timeline of thees policies but we may hamay have i dont know. Thank you mr. Sanchez and good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board and look forward to working with commissioner wilson the subject property located within the Zoning District thats does not have standard density limitations as most residential districts do so in terms of the property the permit seeks to note that the legal use of the building as a sfrnl is based on the planning including the sand born maps is a sfrnl we dont see a second unit at the property it selfnot require neighborhood notification pursuant to the code and so theres is no neighborhood notification to have a discretionary review hearing no b d ms or to the jurisdiction requester in this case that said the united can be legalized i note theyre no density give the location of the unit it appears to have the endorse for a quality unit but we dont have a record of it being a legal second unit so when this document came in as a sfrnl and that extends greater right of preservation to illegal unit how have those are unit not predicament in buildings that contain 3 or more unit this is given just one or two building thats all i have to present im available for questions. Did you look at the 3 r report. The same building inspector thought it said unknown based on the permit history no permit found that went from 1 to 2 the evidence of the sand borns the singlefamily dwelling but based on the information we had could be navigated a one unit building and is there a separate gas and metering. I dont have that perhaps the project sponsor can provide that informational by historically that in and of itself is not determined. Thats the legality. Yes. But can be zoned. Mr. Duffy. Commissioners just on behalf of the dbi id like to welcome commissioners wilson to the board thank you. I should have said that earlier. I missed our turn. I wasnt in my official capacity was i anyway 843 scape street i was at that address some point this year doing the unit verification a process that dbi has wherever we we have a 3 r report and the or in worries about to try to establish more units in the building i made an appointment with the gentleman to the property i didnt get into the property i believe maybe the tenant wasnt notified maybe i cant remember the circumstances but i encourage him to apply for a Building Permit some days we do this verification if everything is clear can what it should be maybe a roofer pulled a permit
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.